Warning: WH seeks to limit/deport immigrants using ACA and other gov. services

Health, Fitness, Insurance, ...
Post Reply
jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 10499
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Warning: WH seeks to limit/deport immigrants using ACA and other gov. services

Post by jacob » Tue Aug 07, 2018 6:27 pm

This is unfortunately not click bait, so heads up if you're an immigrant or married to an immigrant or plan to marry one. A new rule seeks to deny or revert status of legal immigrants if either they (or their American spouse or children) have ever received any public assistance such as housing assistance, food stamps et al. :shock:

I suspect that's pretty rare in this crowd, but it also counts if either has received ACA subsidies :o which is certainly something many FIRE people consider.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigr ... ts-n897931
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... migration/
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... -next.html
https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/kzy ... itizenship

The rule is not final yet and I can't figure out whether it's retroactive.

So consider this a heads up in case you're either enrolled or plan to buy insurance on the exchange or apply for any other government assistance.

IlliniDave
Posts: 2208
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: WH seeks to limit/deport immigrants using ACA and other gov. services

Post by IlliniDave » Tue Aug 07, 2018 7:10 pm

The ACA thing seems unfair on the surface, at least if they go back in time since it was basically mandatory prior to this(?) year. One thing I disagree with the WH on is reducing the number of legal immigrants. I'm all for shoring up the border and doing better at enforcing immigration laws, but I don't think lowering the legal inflow is a good long-term move. This sounds like more of that. Once side is campaigning for open borders and abolition of ICE, the other side seems to be getting petty about people who do follow the law. Hopefully there a are a few sane people occupying the middle to temper both sides.

chicago81
Posts: 269
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 3:24 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Warning: WH seeks to limit/deport immigrants using ACA and other gov. services

Post by chicago81 » Wed Aug 08, 2018 11:45 am

This infuriates me. I am in a situation where my family could be potentially impacted if this rule if it is put into effect.

Over the past 15 years I’ve paid nearly 250K in federal income taxes alone. I will be absolutely livid if they tell me that my spouse can no longer be a citizen and can be deported if I ever decide to take an ACA subsidy in the future, or take any other benefit that I had been helping to fund over the past decade and a half.

Fuck this shit. And fuck this asshole president.

Edit: After making this year's estimated tax payments thus far, (due to realized capital gain of a real estate sale), you can make that number above to be over 300K.
Last edited by chicago81 on Thu Aug 09, 2018 7:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

Mister Imperceptible
Posts: 557
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:18 pm

Re: WH seeks to limit/deport immigrants using ACA and other gov. services

Post by Mister Imperceptible » Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:27 am

IlliniDave wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 7:10 pm
Hopefully there a are a few sane people occupying the middle to temper both sides.
It looks like the pendulum has swung in the other direction.

My grandmother (widow of an honorably discharged Marine) pays over $500 a month for medication that non-citizens routinely get for $5. She was denied public assistance the one time she applied. The woman behind the desk in the public building who denied her was Hispanic. The forms to be filled out to apply for public assistance were only available.....in Spanish. It is no surprise to me that my grandmother watches Fox News, is a staunch Republican, and voted for Trump.

So now, hardworking, legal, taxpaying immigrants are getting draconian treatment.

I don’t see sane people in the middle gaining influence. I see everything getting worse.

IlliniDave
Posts: 2208
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: Warning: WH seeks to limit/deport immigrants using ACA and other gov. services

Post by IlliniDave » Thu Aug 09, 2018 6:05 am

MI, that is truly unfortunate about your mother. I wish I could offer something constructive.

I was raised from the late 1960s through the 1970s/early 1980s. Ideas surrounding social progress were epitomized by expressions like " ... a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." (MLK) We took that stuff seriously. We were taught in no uncertain terms* that along with Nazism/fascism, Socialism/communism were the absolute antitheses of such ideals (and if you measured by body count the latter scored worse).

So even though I was not hip to the term "identity politics" until the last few months, it's prominence over the last 10 years has abraded my instincts. Individuality allows us to arrange ourselves as a population in a continuum where the majority would typically fall in the center of the distribution--close enough that we could maintain a productive dialog and balance tension into a reasonable, stable course. Identity politics tries to redraw the map into one that hollows out the middle via binary identity assignment (you're either in the group or your not) and binary group attribute assignment (the group is either good or bad), and pushing the groups apart by pitting them 100% opposition to one another such that dialogue and cooperation are next to impossible.

I think you are right that as long as identity politics, which in recent years has been pushed most forcefully from the academic/political left (and is spreading on the right, although the nature of the identity group arrangemet is different**), frame the conversation there is little hope of finding appropriately nuanced solutions to difficult problems.

There are some of us who feel a little homeless right now for having refused to be seduced by the renaissance of identity-based modeling of the world, or once in it chose to opt out. We get called the alt-right because refusing to wholeheartedly support the tactics/strategy of identity politics is mistaken (trying to be generous with that word) for being opposed to the individuals defined as being in the palette of "good" groups. I don't think such low-brow maneuvers can be successful forever, hence my hope that at some point people will regain their senses.


*A caveat might be that I did not attend public schools prior to college.
**If you focus on Trump to characterize the political right, the primary groups being employed are US versus non-US, and to a lesser extent, "elite" versus working class. The latter is sort of shared by the left in the guise of rich vs. poor or the X% versus the (100-X)%, although nowadays they tend to reserve that card for tax discussions only.

User avatar
7Wannabe5
Posts: 4145
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Warning: WH seeks to limit/deport immigrants using ACA and other gov. services

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Thu Aug 09, 2018 7:18 am

It does seem quite unfair to lump in people who took advantage of federally subsidized pre-school since this service is often virtually indistinguishable from the public school system.

Also, it seems to me that Trump's team might be risking stepping on some toes here, since there is an overlap of church/charity and state provision of some of these services.

Campitor
Posts: 551
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: Warning: WH seeks to limit/deport immigrants using ACA and other gov. services

Post by Campitor » Thu Aug 09, 2018 7:42 am

Because Congress is gridlocked, the power of the executive branch has grown exponentially. The law could be amended to prevent these types of executive abuses if only congress could reach a bi-partisan consensus on a mutually agreeable immigration policy. Most American's want strict border security, less immigrants that will go on welfare, and a wall. Some Americans want open borders (NAFTA style citizenship) and no litmus tests for entry. These goals are 100% diametrically opposed.

I'm trying to find some information from an official White House source on this topic- so far I've only been able to read reports from the "leaked" brief. The manner of which this information was disclosed makes it appear as if the WH wanted this memo leaked. I wonder if POTUS is trying to force a negotiating point over some desired legislation. And there is no better way to target those Sanctuary Cities into compliance by hitting them where it hurts most - guest worker visas.

I think this is deplorable. People shouldn't be penalized for following the law. If you've arrived here legally and have been 100% forthright in gaining access to public assistance, you shouldn't be subjected to a pernicious change in the law. I feel for all of you that are experiencing any kind of worry and hardship over this proposed change. If this change is implemented, the political discourse will reach a new low that probably hasn't been seen since desegregation and the abolitionist movement.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 10499
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: Warning: WH seeks to limit/deport immigrants using ACA and other gov. services

Post by jacob » Thu Aug 09, 2018 8:41 am

Identity politics is the belief that your political ideology should be determined by your identity, e.g. that you would/should have distinctly different political aims if you're a woman compared to if you were a man; black or not-white compared to white; religious compared to secular; ...

While such studies and the resulting politics became very popular on universities in the noughties and while Jordan Peterson is currently talking them up on the internet, that's not what has eliminated bipartisanship and the loss in the middle when it comes to D and R. (There are increasingly fewer registered D and R compared to Independent voters too.)

The split that lost the middle was caused by political partisanship and attack politics (negative campaigning) and at this point (decade) it has turned congress into a shitshow of governing (why the low approval rates).

What caused the loss of the center and the gridlock:
  • The Hastert rule: Not allowing a vote on the floor of the house unless a majority of the majority (THE RULING PARTY) allows it. It doesn't take much social/strategic intelligence to see how this would create a gap in the middle. If you're a moderate, you first have to convince the extreme-wings on your own side before you can even begin to work with moderates on the other side.
  • Talk radio, C-Span, Fox News and Newt Gingrich: It used to be that Americans read and watched the same things and thus shared the same facts and frameworks. This makes for a nice bell curve in terms of the center. In the 90s a bunch of media was created on the right creating a very conservative spin. Gingrich would hold speeches for empty rooms in congress but you could not see the empty room on C-SPAN. These clips would then be used on Fox et al. As a result, the facts/frameworks became bimodal resulting in the old center and the new right. (This also shifts the middle.---The middle is not between NPR and Sean Hannity ... it's between Hannity and Maddow on MSNBC, but taking the average of extreme outliers is not going to reveal what/where the center framework is) Only within the past decade has there been similar outlets with very liberal spins. For each left-wing talk radio host you can find (if you can even find one), I'll find two^H^H^Hfive on the right. Basically, in terms of media spin, the left is 20 years behind the right, but they're catching up, mostly on the internet. Meanwhile, people who watch Fox or read Drudge or Breitbart are correspondingly so far off the center that they think the actual center is the left.
  • Loss of Senate traditions: If the Hastert rule turned the House into Us vs Them, the Democrats' frivolous use of filibusters (from the noughties and into the present) against Bush2's court nominees despite the nominee having [simple majority] support in the Senate making what is supposed to an exceptional political weapon, a standard tool of politics. This was escalated by D's using the nuclear option once they gained Senate control to thwart R's using the filibuster in the same way. The last remaining exception (supreme court justices) to these shenanigans was then (justifiably---hard to argue otherwise) nuked by R (Mitch McConnell) as Gorsuch was installed with a simple majority. The Senate has thus gone from a supposedly voice of moderation with a 60-vote rule for serious stuff and a long term view (see Ben Sasse for someone who still admits that much) to a simple majority tyranny.
  • Citizens United and superpacs and shameless [software optimized] gerrymandering: Thus ensuring that not only are politicians (mostly on the red side) not representing a majority of voters; the politicians are also actively voting against the majority interests (but for the superpac interests). For example, a majority (larger than the D/R ratio) of voters did not want the tax cuts and do want to keep ACA. The fact that democracy is deliberatively made unrepresentative so politicians can stay in power also draws up the lines and tightens partisanship. If D holds the majorities in 2020 and gets to redraw the gerrymandered districts in their favor, I doubt they're going to be fair about it wanting revenge for 2010.
So, I'm not buying that this crack down the middle happened due to political correctness or identity politics. That's just a framework that's currently popular/fashionable on the internet thanks to Jordan Peterson and a few others. It happened by path-dependent construction of the structure of the political process and the way politics has been communicated to the voters since the 1990s.

If current politics is decided by any kind of identity, it's whether you wear a red shirt (and watch one kind of news) or whether you wear a blue shirt (and watch another kind of news). The level of information/thought that goes into picking a shirt is materially higher on this forum than for the average voter. Most people do not pick their party. Their party picks them and then give them the memes ("Tariffs are Great") and soundbytes ("But her emails", "Nevertheless, she persisted") to justify their shirt color for them. Most people are idiots^H^H^H^H^Hhelpless.

====

Going back to the OP issue.

I figure this is just the latest salvo in the "war on immigrants" coming out of the mind of Stephen Miller who is also responsible for such great hits as the Travel/Muslim-Ban, the failure to resolve DACA, the family separation policy at the border, and now this. He's essentially the nativist wing of the white house---also one of the remaining few who has been with this administration since the beginning.

I think nativism could be classified as a kind of identity politics but if so, it applies to the largest possible group in the country, namely Americans, which is something like 85% of the population. As an identity politic, this makes it much larger than even feminism at <51% (insofar all women were automatically considered feminists). Normally and crucially identity politics is pursued by a minority who feel they're being oppressed by a majority. That's certainly not the case here. Rather, this is the case of the majority going after a minority. Therefore, calling it identity politics is a bit of a stretch.

However, given the political situation and the general lack of information/framework in the average voter, it's certainly possible to present it as a kind of identity politics in terms of slogans, etc. "Build the wall" and scare-mongering ("Bad rapists from MS-13"). You can even convince people that immigrants are taking their jobs even though no natives seem to want to pick apples at $6/hr. However, such understanding is much more complex than the simple "Immigrants are taking our jobs" or "Build the wall" which fit on a stupid facebook meme.

Naturally, being an immigrant, I'm VERY VERY interested in this(*). So far I've seen three or four individual news reports with headlines that are something like this: "Trump supporter's wife/husband gets deported". Then there's an interview, an inevitably, the Trump-voter will say something like "I never thought this would happen to me" and "I thought Trump was only talking about deporting those bad people". It hasn't quite sunk in that ICE is going after everybody they possibly can in order to meet the quotas, including stuff that most Americans would not see as qualifying as being a "bad person" if they had done it themselves---which they likely have (80 million Americans have an arrest record, 47% have received some kind of public benefit at some point).

(*) I'm still safe, but damn was this one close. About four days ago, I was talking to DW about the recent hike in corporate health insurance and suggesting maybe we should look into the exchanges this year. And as noted by iDave above, until this year, it was practically mandatory if not strongly encouraged anyway to get insurance via ACA anyway.

There's a lot of humans who are absolutely okay with reducing benefits (recall how well that "welfare queen" concept is still playing) or hurting people as long as they don't need the benefits themselves or the pain is inflicted on other people. There's basically no sympathy outside "me and my family" on the emotional scale and no empathy on the cognitive scale. Then when they lose their job and need the benefits themselves, they fell they deserve them---and when the immigration policy they voted for causes their spouse to be deported for accepting unemployment benefits or getting a speeding ticket, they're weirdly surprised. I've had this discussion with people I know personally and for whatever reason they do not experience any cognitive dissonance between their actions and the consequences of their political beliefs until it hits them like a brick in their face. (Best explained by how 70% are Kegan2 or Kegan3 and thus literally do not grok the consequences and values of laws beyond how they affect them personally in the here and now.) Basically, they have to learn things the hard way.

It's estimated that this could affect around 20 million people(+). I frankly hope all the families whose toes will be stepped on will be Trump-voters. That would be karma. I can't find find any sympathy within myself for these cases anymore.

(+) Natives are more likely to receive some kind of benefit than immigrants (Imagine that :roll: ... well, it's not suprising. Many immigrants are excluded anyway or wouldn't know about the benefits in the first place.) and lots and lots of people receive or have received something from the government. (Strangely, the child tax credit was not on Miller's list, huh?)

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 10499
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: Warning: WH seeks to limit/deport immigrants using ACA and other gov. services

Post by jacob » Thu Aug 09, 2018 9:03 am

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... -children/
  • 73% of Americans favor grating legal status to immigrants who came to the US illegally as Children (DACA) (54% of R, 89% of D)
  • 40% of Americans want an expanding wall (74% of R, 14% of D)
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... extremism/
  • 59% disapproved of the travel ban (16% R, 89% D)
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/se ... unpopular/
  • 25% support separating families at the border (49% of R, 8% of D)
Note that ALL these instances are opposed by a majority of Americans and a couple of them (terminating DACA and family separation) are even opposed by a majority of Republicans.

chicago81
Posts: 269
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 3:24 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Warning: WH seeks to limit/deport immigrants using ACA and other gov. services

Post by chicago81 » Thu Aug 09, 2018 9:07 am

jacob wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 9:03 am
  • 25% support separating families at the border
What in the actual fuck?

This is looking more and more appealing... and I am not far off from having the required funds:

https://canadafreepress.com/article/can ... hip-almost

Mister Imperceptible
Posts: 557
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:18 pm

Re: Warning: WH seeks to limit/deport immigrants using ACA and other gov. services

Post by Mister Imperceptible » Thu Aug 09, 2018 9:20 am

jacob wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 8:41 am
I frankly hope all the families whose toes will be stepped will be Trump-voters. That would be karma. I can't find find any sympathy within myself for these cases anymore.
I’m sorry to hear you say this Jacob. Some immigrant families did all they could to become Americans. They worked hard, they received no subsidies, they served in the military. They learned English, they assimilated. They took pride in their heritage but they never felt their heritage should supercede the desire and responsibility to become American and serve America. And if they were blue-collar types, they found themselves much worse for the wear after recent financial meltdowns, without understanding why. In such families, anti-establishment votes that went for Obama, later went for Trump.

I understand if your personal concern as an immigrant colors your perspective. Self-interest is still the rule of nature. We are human, all-too-human.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 10499
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: Warning: WH seeks to limit/deport immigrants using ACA and other gov. services

Post by jacob » Thu Aug 09, 2018 9:55 am

@MI - My personal concern as a human being colors my perspective. There are many humans who simultaneously think something like these pairs:

1) It's okay for me to take other people's money if I really need the money myself.
2) It's not okay for anyone to take my money because I really need it.

1) It's okay for me to vote against a government service for other people because I don't need it myself.
2) It's not okay to be denied a service that I need from the government.

1) It's okay to hurt other people because I don't like them.
2) It's not okay for anyone to hurt me just because they don't like me.

1) It's okay for the government to hurt, deport or otherwise tear apart families to send a political message (like protesting the system)
2) It's not okay for the government to tear my family apart just because they want to send a political message.

And so on ...

While this kind of ethics is internally self-consistent within a certain juvenile assholish framework, it's not something I can sympathize with.

In the best case, it's helpless ignorance. In the worst case, it's callous evil.

When it comes to helpless ignorance (e.g. low-information protest voters), I've finally realized that they are literally outside of pedagogical reach no matter what you tell them---very much due to the listed items above in terms of stupid opinion-news combined with attack-politics ---and the only way for them to learn to take some responsibility for their voting and not treat it like a $@#$ cheerleading contest or protest is for reality to hit them personally in their face like a ton of bricks.

When it comes to selfish callousness, it's simply (albeit simplistic) justice when people get hit with stuff they have no problem dishing out to others.

prognastat
Posts: 492
Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:30 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Warning: WH seeks to limit/deport immigrants using ACA and other gov. services

Post by prognastat » Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:26 am

I have trouble seeing how this would pass among most republicans as I can understand the view that illegals broke the law, something republican morality isn't too keen on, when entering the country through unapproved methods and should be deported. I don't see many of them agreeing that people who followed the rules should be deported. Also makes it a lot harder to argue that you aren't being xenophobic when you start deporting people who followed the rules/laws of your country.
Last edited by prognastat on Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 3687
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Warning: WH seeks to limit/deport immigrants using ACA and other gov. services

Post by BRUTE » Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:33 am

brute has a lot of friends who talk about how the political parties (starting with the republicans and talk radio and Fox) have captured their voters by providing them with an isolated, curated reality.

but one step up, that means the current society has grown to a complexity that it cannot manage. if one party finds out they can break perceived reality to manipulate the populace, it was an unstable system to begin with. it seems unlikely that the reality split will be put in the bag, as technology makes it even easier to only consume curated reality that confirms existing biases.

there is a little movement towards sitting down at the table and talking, trying to understand the other position (IDW), but it's very small and it seems unlikely that a majority will be interested in it.

Mister Imperceptible
Posts: 557
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:18 pm

Re: Warning: WH seeks to limit/deport immigrants using ACA and other gov. services

Post by Mister Imperceptible » Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:41 am

@JLF

I cannot disagree with your assessment of how people think. We are all of us very good at externalizing the negatives. It is acceptance of the impossibility to change how everyone thinks, that leads even conscientious persons to buy shares of cigarette companies. One realizes that one is merely an angry grain of sand, and has very little impact, however conscientious they might be. This is how people find freedom in a unfree world.

If it were possible to change how everyone thinks, by being conscientious, and voting, we would have reached a utopia already. The world has never been short of smart and conscientious people. But thrashing animality continues to remain the rule of law.

If we were really conscientious when voting, we would all vote libertarian, re-establish the gold standard, disarm the world’s militaries, etc. But the inevitable tribalism tells me this will never ever happen.

I do not want honest and hardworking people to be deported, anymore than I want honest and hardworking people to have their livelihoods and life savings ripped away from them by neoliberal statist policies. If you have an honest solution to these problems, I am all ears. If you say “Vote Democrat” I will be very disappointed. But, you are self-interested, and I will understand if that is your request.

I agree with your contemptuous remarks regarding the masses and their capacity to vote wisely. Maybe we should have an overt and legal aristocracy. But the current aristocrats seem to be failing. I doubt if they were overthrown violently that the usurpers would be much wiser.

I honestly do not have any answers. I am just not that smart. That is why I have never voted. I know I would be voting on imperfect information at best, or would be voting emotionally at worst. But even those who are smarter than me, and are in control of things, seem to be failing.

All I try to do, really, is not hurt people. And if typing this message on my smartphone means some child in Africa has to dig deeper in the mines to get the cobalt used for my smartphone or the electric vehicle I hope to buy one day, well....I do not know what to do about that. Even in trying not to hurt people, we indirectly hurt them anyway. The only way we can be assured of not hurting anyone, anywhere, ever, is by lying down and dying.

If that is too philosophical and disconnected of an answer, I am sorry to disappoint you. The more I learn, the more ignorant I feel.

prognastat
Posts: 492
Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:30 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Warning: WH seeks to limit/deport immigrants using ACA and other gov. services

Post by prognastat » Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:52 am

Mister Imperceptible wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:41 am
And if typing this message on my smartphone means some child in Africa has to dig deeper in the mines to get the cobalt used for my smartphone or the electric vehicle I hope to buy one day, well....I do not know what to do about that.
The best answer would likely be very ERE, upgrade as little as possible and try your best to repair a phone when it breaks rather than replacing it then. The question is of course if there is less demand for these products and thus fewer people needed to mine the cobalt will these jobs be replaced with better or worse jobs or no jobs and starvation?

Sorry for the side topic.

Mister Imperceptible
Posts: 557
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:18 pm

Re: Warning: WH seeks to limit/deport immigrants using ACA and other gov. services

Post by Mister Imperceptible » Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:06 am

I am just saying that if you carry the avoidance of all hurt caused by civilization to its logical extreme and conclusion, you end up by becoming Theodore Kaczynski.

I think we are thoughtful enough to realize that is a philosophical dead end.

Be careful about selectivity with regard to complicity in society’s evils.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 10499
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: Warning: WH seeks to limit/deport immigrants using ACA and other gov. services

Post by jacob » Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:15 am

@prognastat - That's where the "oblivious hypocrisy" becomes a factor. It sounds very reasonable that one should follow the rules or leave. That's a good slogan. It also makes it easy to convince the low-information (IDK/LOL) voters that those who will be deported are all "bad hombres". Except when we think about, few people are capable of following all the rules. 80 million Americans have some kind of arrest record. Some 15-20% of all American drivers have a DUI record.

Everybody (including low-information voters) would expect there to be some kind of reasonable limit to what kind of rules one needs to break before one deserves to be deported. However, that's the kind of nuance that escape the memes, the slogans, the campaign speeches, and the biased echo-chambers.

For example, historically, murdering someone or committing fraud or becoming a career criminal would get you deported. This is the case in most countries. It was the case in the US until the current administration.

With nativists seeking to get rid of as many non-natives as possible, however, it's now something like having a DUI from 15 years ago (that was one of the cases I saw) that gets someone deported. It might be someone who overstayed their visa forty years ago and has since made a career as a surgeon and now have children and grandchildren. They both broke rules but did they break them enough so it's reasonable to deport them now? Fair? Reasonably fair? Most people (who aren't complete xenophobes) would probably say no and maybe "in this or that case, it should be an exception". But many people don't think that far. And currently there are no exceptions (the case goes to immigration court and the person goes to detention).

With this new rule (which does not need to be a law) it might be someone who married a foreigner and had a disabled child and applied for CHIP and seeing a parent getting deported because they could not renew their greencard. Lovely. And so on with SNAP, ACA, unemployment, etc.

Basically, it's becoming a political risk to live in the US as an immigrant even if you follow all the current rules. It's hard to know what might come down the pipeline next? Mandatory language or educational tests, restriction of certain jobs or investments (like housing) to natives-only, minimum W-2 income (or higher paperwork fees), mandatory employment sponsor, extra laws for starting businesses, loyalty tests, ... These are all possible ways to discourage immigrants from coming or staying and encourage people to leave as long as they can find some rule and get it enforced. It's working too.

@MI - My point is that one's vote (or lack of vote) needs to be congruent with accepting the consequences of that vote (or non-vote). If I invest in the weapons industry or support some aggressive war, for example, I shouldn't be all indignant if some hostile actor one day drops something on me. Similarly, if I was married to an illegal immigrant (or a legal one with a DUI) and voted for Trump to send a message to Washington, I should not be sore when ICE shows up 8 months later at my doorstep and puts my spouse on a bus out of the country. Well, at least I would expect no sympathy. And I would give none either. Not one bit.

User avatar
7Wannabe5
Posts: 4145
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Warning: WH seeks to limit/deport immigrants using ACA and other gov. services

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:35 am

jacob wrote:Identity politics is the belief that your political ideology should be determined by your identity, e.g. that you would/should have distinctly different political aims if you're a woman compared to if you were a man; black or not-white compared to white; religious compared to secular;
I can't remember when I first heard the expression "The personal is political." Here is the original document related to the topic. http://www.carolhanisch.org/CHwritings/PIP.html It might be interesting to see her in round table with Peterson. OTOH, it might be boring, because "Yawn, are we REALLY still having this same conversation?"

My first memory of encountering the phrase "identity politics" was in a thoughtful article discussing the recruitment of young British men of Middle-Eastern heritage into radical Muslim groups. Many of these men had grown up without much religious instruction of any kind, but their perception of being identified by their appearance as Muslim and discriminated against, then led to their adoption of radical teachings. Humans need a sense of belonging, so if rejected by group with whom we wish to identify, other group, perhaps in direct opposition will be found.

I might also note that the desire to retain the benefits of group affiliation will often even supersede the desire to avoid immediate, obvious negative results of maintaining this group affiliation. For instance, maintaining your identity as "genteel" even though "impoverished" or maintaining your identity as "hard-working, upwardly mobile American" even though your mortgage was foreclosed and you are on disability. Kind of like how I might not like to be told that they can't do something, because I am not as competent as a man, but I also very much wouldn't like being told that I am lacking in femininity.

prognastat
Posts: 492
Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:30 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Warning: WH seeks to limit/deport immigrants using ACA and other gov. services

Post by prognastat » Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:02 pm

jacob wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:15 am
With this new rule (which does not need to be a law) it might be someone who married a foreigner and had a disabled child and applied for CHIP and seeing a parent getting deported because they could not renew their greencard. Lovely. And so on with SNAP, ACA, unemployment, etc.

Basically, it's becoming a political risk to live in the US as an immigrant even if you follow all the current rules.
I think the having broken no rules part is going to be a tough one to defend though. Sure it's hard to argue someone who had a DUI 15 years ago is a net negative and should be deported, but you can still argue that they did still knowingly break the law(even if the vast majority of Americans do too). However, arguing that someone that followed all the rules and behaved correctly for their entire time in the US should have their legal immigrant status revoked is different thing entirely to try to defend. The first is arguing a matter of degree(as in how much law breaking is permissible) whereas the latter is a completely separate situation.
Last edited by prognastat on Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply